JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

16 May 2002

Case T-17/01

Georgis Rounis

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Transfer of part of remuneration in the currency of a Member State other than the country where the institution has its seat — Article 17(2)(a) and (b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Combined application’

Full text in French   II-301

Application for:

first, annulment of the Commission's decision of 24 February 2000 limiting transfer of the applicant's emoluments to the United Kingdom to 19% of his net monthly remuneration and of conclusion No 102/84 of the Group of Heads of Administration relating to the transfer of the emoluments of officials and resident agents and, second, damages for the material harm allegedly suffered.

Held:

The Commission's decision of 24 February 2000 limiting the transfer of the applicant's emoluments to the United Kingdom to 19% of his monthly remuneration is annulled. The Commission is ordered to make good the damage suffered by the applicant as the result of the decision of 24 February 2000, together with interest for late payment at the annual rate of 5.25% until payment is made. The parties are to send to the Court of First Instance, within five months of the date of delivery of the present judgment, the amounts to be paid, as established by common accord. Failing agreement, the parties are to submit to the Court, within that same time-limit, the figures they propose. The decision on costs is reserved.

Summary

1. Officials — Actions — Subject-matter — Direction issued to the administration — Inadmissibility

   (Art. 233 EC; Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

2. Officials — Remuneration — Regular transfers outside the country of employment — Conditions — Commitments proved to have been regularly undertaken in the country in whose currency the official requests the transfer to be made

   (Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 17(2) (b))

3. Officials — Remuneration — Regular transfers outside the country of employment — Commitments regularly undertaken within the meaning of Article 17(2) (b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Meaning

   (Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 17(2) (b))

4. Officials — Remuneration — Regular transfers outside the country of employment — Combined application of Art. 17(2) (a) and (b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Maximum amount which may be transferred

   (Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 17(2) (a) and (b); Rules laying down the procedure for the transfer of part of an official's emoluments, Arts 2, second para., fourth indent, and 3)

5. Officials — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Annulment of the contested decision not ensuring adequate compensation for the material damage

1.  It is not for the Community judicature, in exercising its power of review, to issue directions to the Community institutions or to act in their stead. Where a measure is annulled, the institution concerned is required by Article 233 EC to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment.

   (see para. 30)

   See: T-110/94 Sánchez Mateo v Commission [1996] ECRSC I-A-275 and II-805, para. 36; T-111/94 Ouzounoff Popoff v Commission [1996] ECRSC I-A-277 and II-819, para. 40; T-173/95 Biedermann and Others v Court of Auditors [1998] ECRSC I-A-273 and II-831, para. 36; T-236/97 Ouzounoff Popoff v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-311 and II-905, para. 27

2.  Article 17(2)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, which provides that an official may, through the institution in which he serves, have part of his emoluments transferred outside the country in which he is employed in the currency of another Member State, at a special exchange rate and multiplied by a weighting, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to benefit from that facility, an official must show that he is required to meet regular commitments in the country in whose currency he requests the transfer to be made.

   (see paras 42 and 46)

   See: Ouzounoff Popoff v Commission [1998], cited above, paras 31 and 35; T-93/99 Brighino Bonaiti v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-219 and II-1127, para. 21

3.  The reference in Article 17(2)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations to commitments regularly undertaken by the official outside the country where the institution has its seat or outside the country where he carries out his duties, as amplified by Article 2 of the implementing rules drawn up by common accord by the institutions, must be interpreted to mean commitments related to the management of certain interests of the official concerned, situated outside his country of employment and arising in connection with his family circumstances, retirement or housing.

   (see para. 46)

   See: 236/82 Brautigam v Council [1985] ECR 2401, para. 29; Ouzounoff Popoff v Commission [1998], cited above, para. 32

4.  Although the amount which may be transferred under Article 17(2)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations is equivalent to the amount of the official's expatriation or foreign residence allowance, Article 17(2)(b) refers, with regard to the amount of regular transfers, only to commitments proved to have been regularly undertaken by the official outside the country where the institution has its seat or outside the country where he carries out his duties, without laying down a specific limit.

   Although, under Article 3 of the Rules laying down the procedure for the transfer of part of an official's emoluments, the total of the regular transfers as defined in Article 17(2)(a) and (b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations may not exceed 35% of net monthly remuneration, it does not follow that in any event the maximum available for transfers under Article 17(2)(b) is the amount resulting from the difference between 35% of net remuneration and the amount of the expatriation allowance. Since the decisive criterion for transfers under Article 17(2)(b) is that of the commitments proved to have been regularly undertaken by the official outside the country where the institution has its seat or outside the country where he carries out his duties, the amount of the regular transfers within the meaning of Article 17(2)(b) corresponds to that of the aforementioned commitments, subject to a ceiling of 35 % or within the limits of the balance resulting from the deduction of any amount used under Article 17(2)(a) from the overall maximum of 35%.

   (see paras 47-48)

   See: T-125/00 López Madruga v Commission [2001] ECRSC I-A-223 and II-1045, paras 39 and 40

5.  The Community can only be held liable for damages if a number of conditions are satisfied as regards the illegality of the allegedly wrongful act committed by the institutions, the actual harm suffered, and the existence of a causal link between the act and the damage alleged to have been suffered.

   Annulment of the contested decision of itself constitutes neither adequate nor sufficient compensation for the damage suffered.

   (see paras 59, 63)

   See: Ouzounoff Popoff v Commission [1998], cited above, para. 63; T-197/99 Gooch v Commission [2000] ECR-SCI-A-271 and II-1247, para. 67, and the case-law cited therein